British Airways workers set to strike at Heathrow

By Lauren Arena / 23 June 2022 

Travellers at Heathrow Airport will face further disruptions this summer after British Airways check-in and ground staff voted on Thursday to take industrial action over an ongoing pay dispute.

The GMB union, which represents BA workers at Heathrow, said a formal strike will be confirmed in the coming days and will likely take place during the peak summer holiday period.

According to a statement by the union, 95 per cent of BA staff who voted said they were prepared to strike, on a turnout of more than 80 per cent.

Unions members are “furious because a 10 per cent pay cut imposed on them during the pandemic has not been reinstated”. The union claims that while other BA workers have been given a 10 per cent bonus, check-in staff have received nothing.

“BA have tried to offer our members crumbs from the table in the form of a 10 per cent one-off bonus payment, but this doesn’t cut the mustard,” said GMB national officer, Nadine Houghton.

“GMB members at Heathrow have suffered untold abuse as they deal with the travel chaos caused by staff shortages and IT failures. At the same time, they’ve had their pay slashed during BA’s callous fire and rehire policy.”

She added: “It’s not too late to save the summer holidays – other BA workers have had their pay cuts reversed; [now] do the same for ground and check in staff and this industrial action can be nipped in the bid.”

In response, British Airways said it is “extremely disappointed” over the course of action chosen by union members, and that the airline will keep customers updated as the situation evolves.

“Despite the extremely challenging environment and losses of more than £4 billion, we made an offer of a 10 per cent payment which was accepted by the majority of other colleagues. We are fully committed to work together to find a solution, because to deliver for our customers and rebuild our business we have to work as a team,” it said in a statement.

The Business Travel Association (BTA) has also hit back at the union.

In a statement, BTA CEO Clive Wratten, urged all stakeholders to work better together and warned their actions will “crush confidence in international travel”.

“British Airways’ workers by voting to strike are toying with the livelihoods of businesspeople, threatening companies across the country and destroying much anticipated holidays,” he said.

ABOLISH SCOTUS

How the 1911 murder of a New York novelist by a mentally ill concert violinist led to the strictest gun law in the country which has now been struck down by SCOTUS

1911 murder of NYC novelist David Graham Phillips, 43, led to the strictest gun restrictions in the nation

Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday striking down century-old New York law

The law demanded proof of 'proper cause' for licenses to carry a concealed gun

Similar laws are on the books in other states including California and New Jersey

By ANDREA CAVALLIER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED23 June 2022

More than a century after a mentally ill concert violinist shot and killed an up-and-coming novelist in New York City, leading to the strictest gun restrictions in the nation, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the law.

The 6-3 ruling on Thursday reversed a lower court's opinion, which had upheld the 111-year-old New York law restricting licenses to carry concealed weapons in public to those demonstrating a specific need or threat.

Following a bizarre murder-suicide in 1911 on a New York City sidewalk outside The Princeton Club - a building that was home to a legendary architect gunned down five years earlier - a local coroner's clerk's research of the city's skyrocketing gun violence led him to focus on how a deranged musician had acquired the murder weapon.

George Petit LeBrun, who wrote in his memoir that he believed that guns were too readily available to 'irresponsible persons,' and if a law restricting who was able to buy firearms was in force, then the 'insane musician could have brought the pistol used to kill the writer.'

LeBrun enlisted support from a state senator and they used the novelist's murder to push through the law that would lead to the strictest gun restrictions in the country.

That is, until today, when the Supreme Court struck down the century-old law.

David Graham Phillips, 43, was gunned down in New York City in 1911, a murder that led to the strictest gun restrictions in the nation

Phillips was walking to the The Princeton Club (depicted here) when he was shot and killed

LeBrun worked the murders of David Graham Phillips in 1911 and legendary architect Stanford White in 1906, according to a report by The Daily Beast.

David Graham Phillips, 43, was a rising literary star in 1911 when he was gunned down on the sidewalk as he walked along East 21st Street around 1:45 p.m. on his way to The Princeton Club.

The gunman, who was identified by police as Fitzhugh Coyle Goldsborough, suddenly approached him, yelled out, 'here you go,' pulled out a .38 caliber pistol and shot Phillips five times, according to local newspaper reports.

Witnesses said the gunman then stepped in the gutter and proclaimed, 'And here I go,' before shooting himself in the head.

The body of the Harvard graduate and a concert violinist remained splayed on the curb, witnesses said, as passersby carried the man he had shot into the lobby of The Princeton Club.

The Princeton Club - which is now the site of the Grammercy Park Hotel - had previously been the home of legendary architect Stanford White. He was shot and killed at a rooftop theater at the old Madison Square Garden location five years earlier.

White had been killed in a jealous rage by Henry Thaw. Thaw's wife testified at trial that she was the mistress of White who often placed her nude on a red velvet swing in his studio.

Headlines focused more on the scandalous details and the murder weapon - a gun - was buried deep within the story. Thaw was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

LeBrun worked on the architect's murder, but it was the novelist's slaying five years later outside the same building where White had lived that compelled Lebrun to take action.

The gunman, who was identified by police as Fitzhugh Coyle Goldsborough, shot Phillips and then shot himself (pictured)

The body of the Harvard graduate and a concert violinist remained splayed on the curb, witnesses said, as passersby carried the man he had shot into the lobby of The Princeton Club

'Although I knew Phillips only slightly, I was deeply shocked by his senseless death,' LeBrun wrote in his memoir, It's Time to Tell. 'He had many years ahead of him and might have reached the greatness and brilliance critics were predicting.'

It was reported that Goldsborough allegedly stalked Phillips without ever meeting him, and police said he falsely imagined that his family had been portrayed in one of Phillips' novels.

An entry in a notebook found on the gunman read: 'I deem Mr. Phillips an enemy to society and personal enemy to myself.'

LeBrun then discovered that Goldsborough had an easy time of getting the gun.

'He simply walked in, selected the weapon he wanted, paid for it and walked out,' he wrote in his book.

LeBrun checked police records and found there had been 170 murders by firearms in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the Bronx in 1910.

He also wrote that there had been 917 arrests for carrying a concealed weapon, which was illegal even though there were no restrictions on purchasing a gun. He continued explaining that he figured that the vast majority of gun toters were not caught.

'That means there were many thousands of armed men roaming the streets of the city,' he wrote. 'While there was a law against carrying concealed firearms it wasn't worth the ink used to print it since it did not prevent anybody from buying firearms. And it was only a minor violation, a misdemeanor, if you were caught.'

Headlines focused more on the scandalous details and the murder weapon - a gun - was buried deep within the story. Thaw was found not guilty by reason of insanity

LeBrun decided there should be a law to restrict who could get a gun in the first place.

'To me the law in existence was a perfect example of attacking a problem backwards,' he wrote. 'The law should have prevented the easy purchase of firearms rather than slightly slap a man on the wrist for carrying a pistol around.'

'I reasoned that the time had come to have legislation passed that would prevent the sale of pistols to irresponsible persons,' he wrote. 'In the vernacular of that day, 'There oughta be a law.'

LeBrun enlisted the support of influential New Yorkers and got the attention of Timothy 'Big Tim' Sullivan, a Manhattan state senator, who he found to be 'surprisingly enthusiastic' about the need for greater gun control.'

'I'll do anything to stop those shootings by gangsters,' Sullivan told LeBrun, as recounted in the memoir. 'It's terrible when an innocent person is killed. Everybody runs to me and they want me to have the cops do something, as if they weren't busy with it already. But even when gangsters kill each other, the friends and relatives come knocking on my door for money to get a lawyer and arrange bail. And they're hardly out the door when the relatives of the victim come to me for a contribution to pay for his burial.'

LeBrun enlisted the support of influential New Yorkers and got the attention of Timothy 'Big Tim' Sullivan, a Manhattan state senator, who he found to be 'surprisingly enthusiastic' about the need for greater gun control'

LeBrun explained that the law would require those seeking to buy a gun to first secure a permit issued by the police. The buyer would have to cite 'proper cause,' a particular need for self-protection such as routinely carrying large sums of cash.

'I outlined the bill I had in mind and told them that if such a law had been in force, then the insane musician could not have bought the pistol used to kill the writer,' LeBrun wrote.

Sullivan later spoke on the Senate floor recounting stories of gangs fighting in the streets.

'Last Saturday night, there was a couple of gangs fighting in the street,' Sullivan began. 'A mother with a baby in her arms came along and was shot dead. That alone ought to pass this bill.'

The Supreme Court has struck down a New York law that required applicants seeking a concealed carry license to show 'proper cause' for their request

'This is a bill against murder,' he said. '[If] this bill passes, it will do more to carry out that commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill' than all the talk of all the ministers and priests for the next ten years.'

The bill passed five months later with only five senators dissenting. Variations of Sullivan's Law was later instituted in California, New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii, and Massachusetts.

New York's law, which has been in place since 1913, says that to carry a concealed handgun in public, a person applying for a license has to show 'proper cause,' a specific need to carry the weapon.

LeBrun wrote in his book that the law as written had survived numerous challenges in the courts. It continued after LeBrun's death in 1966. He was 104.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court struck down the New York law severely restricting licenses to carry a concealed weapon, in the high court's biggest Second Amendment ruling in a decade.

The 6-3 ruling on Thursday reversed a lower court's opinion, which had upheld the 111-year-old New York law restricting licenses to carry concealed weapons in public to those demonstrating a specific need or threat.

New York is not alone in severely limiting who can get a license to carry concealed in public, and the new ruling will likely make it easier to legally carry a gun in major cities including Los Angeles, Boston and Baltimore.

The 6-3 ruling on Thursday came along ideological lines, with the court's conservative majority all voting in favor of striking down the New York law

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion, writing that the New York law prevents law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

The court decision comes as the Senate was poised on Thursday for a vote to advance a bipartisan gun-control bill, in what could be the first new federal gun legislation in decades.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, reacted with fury to the court ruling, saying that it flew in the face of efforts to restrict gun rights following several high-profile mass shootings.

'It is outrageous that at a moment of national reckoning on gun violence, the Supreme Court has recklessly struck down a New York law that limits those who can carry concealed weapons,' Hochul wrote in a tweet.

'In response to this ruling, we are closely reviewing our options – including calling a special session of the legislature,' the governor added.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, reacted with fury to the court ruling and said she would consider calling a special session of the legislature to respond

Court ruling will have far-reaching implications in major cities including LA, Boston and Baltimore

The new ruling will have far-reaching implications in a number of states with similar laws.

California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island all have similar laws.

Thursday's court ruling is expected to ultimately allow more people to legally carry guns on the streets of the nation's largest cities - including Baltimore, Los Angeles and Boston - and elsewhere.

About a quarter of the U.S. population lives in states expected to be affected by the ruling, the high court's first major gun decision in more than a decade.

The ruling comes as Congress is actively working on gun legislation following recent mass shootings in Texas, New York and California.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg also slammed the ruling, saying in a statement: 'This decision severely undermines public safety not just in New York City, but around the country.'

Bragg said that his office was analyzing the ruling and would work to craft new legislation within the bounds of the court's decision.

'The Supreme Court may have made our work harder, but we will only redouble our efforts to develop new solutions to end the epidemic of gun violence and ensure lasting public safety,' he said.

The new ruling will have far-reaching implications in a number of states with similar laws.

California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island all have similar laws. The Biden administration had urged the justices to uphold New York´s law.

Thursday's court ruling is expected to ultimately allow more people to legally carry guns on the streets of the nation´s largest cities - including New York, Los Angeles and Boston - and elsewhere.

About a quarter of the U.S. population lives in states expected to be affected by the ruling, the high court´s first major gun decision in more than a decade.

The ruling comes as Congress is actively working on gun legislation following recent mass shootings in Texas, New York and California.

Justice Thomas wrote for the majority that the Constitution protects 'an individual´s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.'

In their decision, the justices struck down a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry one in public.

The justices said the requirement violates the Second Amendment right to 'keep and bear arms.'

In a dissent joined by his liberal colleagues, Justice Stephen Breyer focused on the toll taken by gun violence. 'Since the start of this year alone (2022), there have already been 277 reported mass shootings-an average of more than one per day,' Breyer wrote.

Backers of New York's law had argued that striking it down would ultimately lead to more guns on the streets and higher rates of violent crime.

The decision comes at a time when gun violence already on the rise during the coronavirus pandemic has spiked anew.

In most of the country, gun owners have little difficulty legally carrying their weapons in public.

But that had been harder to do in New York and the handful of states with similar laws.

New York's law, which has been in place since 1913, says that to carry a concealed handgun in public, a person applying for a license has to show 'proper cause,' a specific need to carry the weapon.

The state issues unrestricted licenses where a person can carry their gun anywhere and restricted licenses that allow a person to carry the weapon but just for specific purposes such as hunting and target shooting or to and from their place of business.

The Supreme Court last issued a major gun decision in 2010. In that decision and a ruling from 2008 the justices established a nationwide right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

The question for the court this time was about carrying one outside the home.

The Average Beat Cop Must Take Great Comfort From This Supreme Court Gun Decision

This Court is going to leave things in ruins.

By Charles P. Pierce

ESQUIRE

Jun 23, 2022

DREW ANGERERGETTY IMAGES


WASHINGTON—By and large, this has been an optimistic week for the United States Senate. That sclerotic institution seemed to be right on the brink of actually passing a bipartisan-gun reform bill. It's a pale shadow of what’s really needed, but it's an actual law that will get passed. Hurrah. Hooray. Uvalde was enough. On Wednesday, Senator Chris Murphy, whose herculean efforts have brought the bill nearly to the finish line, told a gaggle of us, “This is a paradigm-shifting moment,” he said. “We have been able to get together and do something about guns.”

OK, senator. Can I introduce you to the United States Supreme Court? They work right across the street there.

On Thursday, the Court dropped the first of its “major” outstanding opinions, and it was every bit the whopping load of dead fish that we’ve come to expect from the carefully engineered conservative majority. From CNN:

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York gun law enacted more than a century ago that places restrictions on carrying a concealed handgun outside the home – an opinion marking the widest expansion of gun rights in a decade. “Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court’s 6-3 majority. The opinion changes the framework that lower courts will use going forward as they analyze other gun restrictions, which could include the proposals currently before Congress if they eventually become law.

You think? They even let Justice Thomas deliver the Court’s opinion on his birthday. That’s just adorable.

I mean, even Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn spent the last few days taking victory laps because 13 Republicans had signed onto an earlier procedural motion to advance Murphy’s gun-reform bill. Of course, this riled up The Base to the point where Cornyn got booed vigorously at the Texas state GOP convention. If any of these Republicans were looking for a way to bail on Murphy, the Supreme Court just gave them a good one. And, of course, it also has turned New York City into a free-fire zone, which is a vastly more important consequence.

Writing for the majority in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Justice Thomas says, in essence, that the right to carry a personal weapon is as close to absolute as any guaranteed by the Bill of Rights or the Constitution itself. Certainly, it’s more absolute than the 14th Amendment-derived right to privacy that this Court is preparing to shred for 51 percent of the country’s population. States can regulate a woman’s body, but they can’t regulate your right to carry a gun into Wegmans. Federalism is harrrrrrd. Just as it is impossible to craft a campaign-finance law that would survive a challenge under Citizens United, it’s beyond me to come up with a way to write a gun-control law that could possibly survive Thomas’s vast expansion of Second Amendment freedoms. He blew past even the limited restrictions suggested in the Heller decision, the ones that the late Antonin Scalia used as a fig-leaf for his support of an individual right to bear arms. From the decision:

In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny.

Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

As has been obvious to grammarians for almost three centuries, there is nothing plain about the “plain text” of the Second Amendment. But, even so, it’s a considerable leap from “a well-regulated militia” to “don’t leave home unstrapped.” Thomas went even further than that, though. He ruled that any modern gun regulation must have some “analogue” in the gun regulations of the past, and that consideration of the relative damage of modern weaponry cannot be the basis of modern regulation.

The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. Of course, the regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. But the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated, even though its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. 400, 404–405. Indeed, the Court recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.”

Thus, if your triple-great-grandpappy had an individual right to a flintlock musket, you have an individual right to an AR-15. The average beat cop must take great comfort in this, now that every traffic stop is even more of a crapshoot. Ironically, Murphy’s gun law passed the Senate with a dozen Republicans voting in favor. But the only Republicans who matter are the six who work across the street.

In other action, the Court took a serious whack at the Miranda decision. You still have your rights, mind you—for the moment, anyway. But if the cops bust you and refuse to read them to you, you can’t sue them for that anymore. From Reuters:
The justices ruled 6-3 in favor of deputy sheriff Carlos Vega, who had appealed a lower court decision reviving a lawsuit by a hospital employee named Terence Tekoh who accused the officer of violating his rights under the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Tekoh was charged with sexually assaulting a hospital patient after Vega obtained a written confession from him without first informing the suspect of his rights through so-called Miranda warnings. Tekoh was acquitted at trial.

Ominously, the majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito, whose respect for the rights of criminal suspects, and ordinary citizens, is not vast. More ominously, Alito seems to be alluding to the possibility that Miranda’s time may be running out, too. The conservative legal ecosystem in which Alito was raised has had the decision in its sights almost from the moment it was handed down.

Miranda itself was clear on this point. Miranda did not hold that a violation of the rules it established necessarily constitute a Fifth Amendment violation, and it is difficult to see how it could have held otherwise. For one thing, it is easy to imagine many situations in which an un-Mirandized suspect in custody may make self-incriminating statements without any hint of compulsion.

Tell me you’ve never been in custody without telling me you’ve never been in custody.
In addition, the warnings that the Court required included components, such as notification of the right to have retained or appointed counsel present during questioning, that do not concern self-incrimination per se but are instead plainly designed to safeguard that right. And the same is true of Miranda’s detailed rules about the waiver of the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

This Court is going to leave things in ruins.

Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Sinks to Historic Low

BY JEFFREY M. JONES

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• 25% of Americans have confidence in Supreme Court, down from 36% in 2021
• Current reading is five percentage points lower than prior record low
• Confidence is down among Democrats and independents this year

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- With the U.S. Supreme Court expected to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision before the end of its 2021-2022 term, Americans' confidence in the court has dropped sharply over the past year and reached a new low in Gallup's nearly 50-year trend. Twenty-five percent of U.S. adults say they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court, down from 36% a year ago and five percentage points lower than the previous low recorded in 2014.

These results are based on a June 1-20 Gallup poll that included Gallup's annual update on confidence in U.S. institutions. The survey was completed before the end of the court's term and before it issued its major rulings for that term. Many institutions have suffered a decline in confidence this year, but the 11-point drop in confidence in the Supreme Court is roughly double what it is for most institutions that experienced a decline. Gallup will release the remainder of the confidence in institutions results in early July.

The Supreme Court is likely to issue a ruling in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case before its summer recess. The decision will determine the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that would ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. A leaked draft majority opinion in the case suggests that the high court will not only allow the Mississippi law to stand, but also overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 court ruling that prohibits restrictions on abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. Americans oppose overturning Roe by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.

In September, Gallup found the Supreme Court's job approval rating at a new low and public trust in the judicial branch of the federal government down sharply. These changes occurred after the Supreme Court declined to block a Texas law banning most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, among other controversial decisions at that time. Given these prior results, it is unclear if the drop in confidence in the Supreme Court measured in the current poll is related to the anticipated Dobbs decision or had occurred several months before the leak.

The prior low in Supreme Court confidence was 30% in 2014, which was also the year when confidence in major U.S. institutions in general hit a low point, averaging 31%.

Public confidence in the Supreme Court has been lower over the past 16 years than it was before. Between 1973 and 2006, an average of 47% of U.S. adults were confident in the court. During this 33-year period, no fewer than four in 10 Americans expressed high confidence in the court in any survey, apart from a 39% reading in October 1991 taken during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.

Since 2006, confidence has averaged 35% and has not exceeded 40% in any survey.

Democrats, Independents Behind Confidence Slide

Confidence in the Supreme Court is down by double digits among both Democrats (30% to 13%) and independents (40% to 25%) this year, but it is essentially unchanged among Republicans (37% to 39%)

The Democratic figure is the lowest Supreme Court confidence rating Gallup has measured for any party group historically, eight points lower than the 21% figure among Democrats in 2019. Independents' 25% confidence rating is the lowest registered for that group historically, with the prior low being 28% in 2015.

Republican confidence has been lower in the past than now, with the 26% measured in 2010 still the lowest for GOP supporters to date. That low point occurred after Barack Obama picked a liberal justice, Sonia Sotomayor, in 2009 and nominated another, Elena Kagan, in 2010 before the poll was conducted.

While Republicans' confidence hasn't changed much in the past year, it has come down significantly from 53% in 2020. That measure was taken during Donald Trump's reelection year -- after he had two of his nominees confirmed to the Supreme Court, but before a third Trump justice was confirmed days prior to his being defeated for reelection in November.

Bottom Line

The Supreme Court is likely to issue one of its most consequential rulings at a time when public confidence in the institution has never been lower. If, as expected, the conservative-leaning court rules to overturn Roe v. Wade, it is unclear whether that decision would further harm the institution's reputation among Americans or perhaps improve it if Americans agree with the court's reasoning. Invalidating Roe would allow state governments to decide whether abortion is legal or illegal in their state.

The public may have already taken the Supreme Court's stance on the abortion issue into account, with its decision on the Texas law and the leaked draft majority opinion on the Mississippi law. But an actual, rather than hypothetical or expected, decision may have more potency in shifting Americans' views of the court.

Learn more about how the Gallup Poll Social Series works.

View complete question responses and trends (PDF download).

Since early December, cable and broadcast news spent less than 50 minutes covering the wave of Starbucks unionization efforts

MSNBC outpaced both its cable counterparts and broadcast channels with the most amount of coverage

WRITTEN BY CHLOE SIMON

RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ROB SAVILLO

PUBLISHED 06/23/22

Cable and broadcast news spent only 49 minutes in over six months covering the Starbucks’ workers ongoing union efforts, which has resulted in over 100 stores voting yes for unionization. 

On December 9, 2021, a majority of employees at a Starbucks store in Buffalo, New York, voted to unionize as Starbucks management tried to halt the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from counting the votes. Since then, at least 211 Starbucks stores across the country have begun the process of unionizing, and to date, 119 stores have voted to form a union. Starbucks corporate management, led by notorious union buster and CEO Howard Schultz, has been a major obstacle to formation of unions. Since the initial Buffalo store unionization, Starbucks has fired workers with ties to union efforts, and managers have reportedly threatened transgender employees that their health care benefits could end if they unionize. The NLRB has filed multiple complaints against Starbucks in 2022 for retaliation against employees trying to unionize as well as for threats and increased surveillance in stores with union activity.  

Even though the Starbucks unionization push is currently one of the biggest in the country, cable news channels, which run on a 24-hour model, have paid minimal attention to the story, resulting in only 38 total minutes of coverage between December 9, 2021, and June 22, 2022. MSNBC spent the most amount of time and had the highest number of segments on the story, providing over 21 minutes of coverage across 10 segments, while CNN had almost 6 minutes of coverage across 6 segments. Though Fox News also had just 5 segments on the story, its coverage total almost 11 minutes and often portrayed unions and employees' efforts in a negative light.

Broadcast news, which airs just in the morning and evening (and in PBS’ case, just in the evenings), also had limited coverage on the Starbucks unions, totaling only 11 minutes. ABC, PBS, and NBC all devoted under 3 segments – and less than 3 minutes each – to the story. CBS fared a little better, airing 9 segments for almost 6 minutes of coverage. 

Among all segments counted on all channels, Starbucks workers were quoted only 38% of the time. Many segments focused on just one or two particular stores unionizing and failed to contextualize it within the larger effort or add important details like corporate retaliation against workers. 

Fox’s coverage was predictably the most anti-union. The day after the first successful union drive at the Buffalo store, Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto praised Starbucks for giving a “wide range of benefits” and higher salaries despite employees in certain locations stating they are not paid enough to afford their rent. In a correspondent segment on Your World with Neil Cavuto discussing both recent Amazon and Starbucks unionization drives, reporter Jeff Flock incorporated Heritage Foundation’s Rachel Greszler complaining that “increased unionization will be bad news for consumers that are already struggling with the record inflation.” 

Due to workers of big companies like Amazon and Starbucks pushing for unionization and thousands of employees striking to protest for better conditions and wages, 2021 was deemed by some as the “year of the worker.” This year has continued that trend with the NLRB reporting that from October 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022, there has been a 57% increase in union petitions. Cable news has often failed to meet the challenge of providing ample coverage on these historic labor period. Media Matters previously found that “cable news failed to cover the full scope of strikes across America in 2021, with the vast majority of strikes left unmentioned and most discussion concentrated in a one-month span.” CNN and Fox News both dropped the ball when it came to the Amazon warehouse workers vote in Staten Island, New York; CNN only covered it for 5 minutes in 1 segment on a 6 a.m. Sunday morning show, while Fox covered it for 10 minutes across 5 segments “but the vast majority of it was correspondent reports about a statement of disappointment from Amazon’s management, rather than quotes or discussion of the workers’ demands.” 

Methodology

Media Matters searched transcripts in the SnapStream video database for all original programming on CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC and all original episodes of ABC’s Good Morning America, World News Tonight, and This Week; CBS' Mornings, Evening News, Face the Nation, CBS Morning News, and CBS Saturday Morning Show; NBC’s Today, Nightly News, and Meet the Press; and PBS’ NewsHour for the term “Starbucks” within close proximity to the term “worker” or any variations of any of the terms “union,” “labor,” or “organize” from December 9, 2021, through June 22, 2022. 

We timed segments, which we defined as instances when Starbucks unionization efforts were the stated topic of discussion or when we found significant discussion of Starbucks unionization efforts. We defined significant discussion as instances when two or more speakers in a multitopic segment discussed the unionization efforts with one another.

We did not include passing mentions, which we defined as instances when a single speaker mentioned the unionization efforts without another speaker engaging with the comment, or teasers, which we defined as instances when the anchor or host promoted a segment about the unionization efforts scheduled to air later in the broadcast. For multitopic segments, we timed only the relevant speech. We rounded all times to the nearest minute.

We then reviewed all segments and articles in their entirety for whether any speaker quoted or paraphrased labor organizers or strikers or quoted or paraphrased management or company spokespersons.

WAGE THEFT

Settlement made in migrant workers’ crawfish processing suit

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Six migrant workers would share in a total of more than $21,000 in the proposed settlement of a lawsuit filed last year alleging that a Louisiana crawfish processing business underpaid them in violation of minimum wage laws.

The proposed settlement was filed this week in federal court in Lafayette. The suit was filed on behalf of workers Norma Edith Torres Quinonez and Martha Icela Flores Gaxiola, both of Mexico, against Crawfish Processing LLC in Marksville.

Four other workers later joined the litigation, which also alleged workers were housed in unsafe and unsanitary conditions and charged excessive amounts for rent. If approved by a federal judge, the six plaintiffs would receive amounts ranging from $1,863 to $4,980.

The amounts represent unpaid wages the workers said they were due under the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act, plus 50% of those wages and rent reimbursement. When the original lawsuit was filed in May of last year, the two original plaintiffs said that they routinely worked 60 hours or more per week, the company failed to pay the $9.75 per hour they were promised and the pay fell below the $7.25 per hour they were legally entitled to.

The court document filed Wednesday says the settlement is a compromise of a “good faith” dispute over the number of hours the plaintiffs worked and the rent owed them. The company did not admit any legal liability.

Crawfish Processing also agreed in the settlement to arrange for state inspections of rental housing that the company provides workers to make sure it meets federal standards and will make sure that workers are told they do not have to live in company-provided housing.

The suit was filed by attorneys for Texas RioGrande Legal Aid. The settlement also includes $22,500 to cover expenses and fees for the workers’ attorneys.

Merseyrail staff accept "sensible" 7% pay offer

Published17 hours ago

The pay deal was described as "a sensible outcome" by the union

Union members have accepted a pay offer from Merseyrail in a deal they have praised for being in keeping with the spiralling cost of living.

The Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (TSSA) said the Merseyside rail operator's offer was worth 7.1%.

General secretary Manuel Cortes described the deal as "a sensible outcome to a reasonable offer".

Merseyrail said it met with trade unions colleagues as "part of our normal annual pay negotiations".

The union members include station retailers, customer relations assistants, train crew admin assistants, stations managers, resource controllers.

Ninety-four per cent of TSSA members in general grades at Merseyrail voted to accept the deal.

Members in management grades were offered the same terms, however, this has not been accepted yet.

Mr Cortes praised all involved for clinching the deal and said Merseyrail was a company "which knows the value of our rail and transport network".

'Needless and nonsensical'

"What this clearly shows is our union, and sister unions, are in no way a block on finding the solutions needed to avoid a summer of discontent on the railways," he said.

"Rather, it is the government who are intent on digging in their heels.

"The offer from Merseyrail will demonstrate to the entire country that ministers are set on a course of needless and nonsensical intransigence which benefits no one."

He added: "It is a sensible outcome to a reasonable offer which goes a long way towards keeping pace with the escalating cost of living."

The pay deal comes after members from the rail union RMT walked out on Tuesday in the largest rail strike in decades over jobs, pay and conditions.

Andy Heath, Merseyrail managing director said: "Merseyrail is solely responsible for making such pay offers, working constructively with our trade unions.

"We are not part of the current national dispute that is taking place between the RMT, Network Rail and train-operating companies directly contracted to the Department for Transport (DfT)."

A DfT spokeswoman added: "The financing of the agreement that has been reached between the RMT and Merseyrail is a matter for them to explain to the people of Liverpool.

"No additional taxpayers' money will be spent on this cost increase."

How global warming is exacerbating floods in Bangladesh

Excessive and erratic rainfall has caused devastating floods, hitting parts of Bangladesh hard. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina said there will be no quick respite for the country.

Bangladesh is considered one of the most climate-vulnerable countries in the world

Several regions in Bangladesh have been battered by catastrophic flooding over the past few days, killing at least 36 people and displacing hundreds of thousands.   

At least 17 of the country's 64 districts, mostly in the north and north eastern Sylhet region, were affected by the natural disaster with several areas also losing electricity.

With more rainfall predicted over the coming days, Bangladesh's Flood Forecast and Warning Centre warned on Tuesday that water levels would remain dangerously high in the country's northern regions.

Many people in the affected areas are struggling to access food, drinking water and other essential supplies. 

Local authorities said their medical teams were trying to reach flood-affected areas to provide them with tablets to purify drinking water.  

Food and water in short supply

Officials from Bangladesh's Department of Disaster Management said that they were making "frantic efforts" to ensure there is food and drinking water for all the affected people. 

But some people have complained that the government's response is slow and inadequate.

"People in the remote places are getting nothing," Nafisa Anjum Khan, a volunteer from Dhaka who is now working in the Sylhet and Sunamganj areas, told DW. 

"For the seven days I have been working in those areas, I haven't seen local officials put any effort to deliver aid to those areas," Khan added. 

She said that most of the groups working there were supplying dry food, which is not enough. "People are craving for cooked food. And baby food is widely missing."

The UN children's agency UNICEF said it was urgently seeking $2.5 million (€2.38 million) to respond to the emergency in Bangladesh and it was working with the government to supply water purification tablets, emergency medical supplies and water containers.

"Four million people, including 1.6 million children, stranded by flash floods in northeastern Bangladesh are in urgent need of help," UNICEF said in a statement.

Bangladesh very vulnerable to climate crisis

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina visited the affected area this week and stressed the need for better preparedness to face such natural disasters.

"We haven't faced a crisis like this for a long time. Infrastructure must be constructed to cope with such disasters," she later said in a press conference in Dhaka.

Hasina also pointed out that there will be no quick respite for the country. She said that floodwaters would recede soon from the northeast, but they would likely then hit the country's southern region, on the way to the Bay of Bengal.

"We should prepare to face it," she said. "We live in a region where flooding happens quite often, which we have to bear in mind. We must prepare for that."

Bangladesh is considered one of the world's most climate-vulnerable countries, and the poor are disproportionately impacted by the effects of such disasters.

The current crisis has been worsened by rainwater flowing down from the surrounding hills of India's Meghalaya state, including some of the world's wettest areas like Mawsynram and Cherrapunji, which each received more than 970 millimeters (38 inches) of rain on Sunday, according to government data.

G M Tarekul Islam, a professor at the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology's  Institute of Water and Flood Management, says climate change is a factor behind the erratic and early rains that triggered the floods.

"The erratic rainfall in India's Cherapunji and other areas is the main reason for this flood. Because of global warming, the climate has changed and so has the pattern of rainfall. Now we are observing more and more heavy rainfall," he told DW.

Many people in the affected areas are struggling to access food, drinking water and other essential supplies

In its sixth assessment report published last August, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also noted the increasing frequency of heavy precipitation events since the 1950s and connected them to human-induced climate change.

What other factors are behind the increased severity?

Although floods are not new to the region, Islam said that the changing climate has made the monsoon — a seasonable change in weather usually associated with strong rains — more variable over the past decades, resulting in longer dry spells interspersed with heavy rain. 

"Because of global warming, more and more aqueous vapor accumulates in the sky as clouds. When precipitation begins, it also takes down the accumulated vapor with it. Thus, the rain becomes more erratic and heavier," he explained adding: "That means, instead of getting an average amount of rain throughout the monsoon time, we get short spells of torrential rains."

The expert also blamed other factors like increased mining activity and cutting down of trees on the Indian side for contributing to the increased severity of the floods.

"When stones are mined and trees are cut off, the downward run of water becomes much faster. So we see the water flowing down faster and the rivers getting inundated," Islam said. "This also changes the river morphology. The extra sediments that are brought by the running water pile up on the riverbeds and further expedite the inundation."

Edited by: Srinivas Mazumdaru

Union Warns Jailed Iranian Activist's Health Failing As Hunger Strike Continues

Shahabi, a member of the board of directors of the Tehran Bus Workers' Union, has been on a hunger strike since June 13 to protest against his continued detention.

The Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company Workers' Union has warned that the health condition of Reza Shahabi, a jailed labor activist on his 10th day of a hunger strike, is deteriorating.

The union said in a statement dated June 22 that authorities need to release Shahabi, claiming his "continued physical and psychological abuse" coupled with "further interrogations" will fail to yield results and "only lead to his death."

The union added that Shahabi "should be transferred immediately to a suitable hospital outside the prison and undergo the necessary medical examination and care."

Shahabi, a member of the board of directors of the Tehran Bus Workers' Union, has been on a hunger strike since June 13 to protest against his continued detention.

Shahabi was arrested at his home on May 10 by Intelligence Ministry officers shortly after publicly calling on the authorities to investigate death threats against him and his family.

On May 17, state television alleged Shahabi and other labor activists had met with two French nationals -- 37-year-old Cecil Kohler and her 69-year-old partner, Jacques Paris -- who were arrested the day after Shahabi and accused of seeking to foment unrest in Iran.

The allegations come as the country's security forces try to suppress antigovernment protests in cities across the country against skyrocketing inflation and the government's recent decision to cut some subsidies. Reports say at least five demonstrators have died in the protests.

With writing and reporting by Ardeshir Tayebi

Mexico to offer Assange sanctuary as Amlo calls for charges to be dropped


The British government on Friday, June 17, 2022 ordered the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States to face spying charges.

MEXICAN President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has offered sanctuary to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and will raise the case with US President Joe Biden when they meet next month.

The president, known as Amlo, told reporters during a press briefing on Tuesday that the journalist had been treated “very unfairly” to the shame of the world and will call on the US to drop the charges against him.

“Julian Assange is the best journalist of our time in the world and he has been treated very unfairly, worse than a criminal. This is a shame for the world,” Amlo said.

The leftist leader said he was disappointed by Britain’s Home Secretary Priti Patel’s decision to allow his extradition to the US, where he faces 175 years behind bars under the draconian Espionage Act.

Amlo said that his demand for charges against Mr Assange to be dropped would disappoint hardliners in the US but insisted that “humanity must prevail.”

He will make the call when he meets Mr Biden in the US next month and offer him sanctuary in Mexico, describing Mr Assange as “a prisoner of conscience.”

Amlo is the latest world leader to condemn the actions of Britain and the US in the treatment of Mr Assange who remains in Belmarsh high security prison pending appeal against Ms Patel’s decision.

Earlier this week, China said “all eyes are on the Assange case,” which Beijing said exposed the hypocrisy of those countries that claim to stand for press freedom and democracy.

Newly elected Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has, however, come under criticism for “abandoning” Mr Assange, despite speaking out against his treatment before assuming power.

His government insists that it is using diplomatic channels to secure his release rather than engaging in what he described as “megaphone diplomacy.”

But veteran Australian journalist John Pilger blasted Mr Albanese for his “weasel words,” describing him as a coward.

“Australia has the diplomatic power to bring Julian Assange home. Not doing so is treachery,” he said.

“The killing of Assange is our final surrender,” Mr Pilger added.

Yesterday leading German newspaper Berliner Zeitung called for the release of Mr Assange in a front-page article.

Mr Assange’s father John Shipton and brother Gabriel Shipton have been in the German capital calling for the federal government to act to secure his release.

“Joe Biden will act if Germany puts the case on the table with agreement from its Nato partners,” they told the newspaper, adding that next week’s G7 summit in Munich is “a good opportunity to build up pressure.”

MORNINGSTAR

US asked to explain after Pentagon admits to operating 46 biolabs in Ukraine after months of denial


A woman brandishes the Ukrainian flag on top of a destroyed Russian tank in Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, June 10, 2022

WASHINGTON has been urged to come clean over its biolab programme in Ukraine after the Department of Defence admitted its existence.

The Pentagon said on Thursday that it has operated 46 biolabs in Ukraine handling dangerous pathogens, after previously dismissing the charges as Russian propaganda.

China has joined calls for United States to explain the role and capacity of the laboratories following the Pentagon’s stunning reversal after months of denial.

In March leaked papers appeared to suggest that its operations in Ukraine were sensitive while Kiev was reportedly blocked from public disclosure about the programme.

According to a document signed between the two nations, Ukraine is obliged to transfer the dangerous pathogens to the US Department of Defence for biological research.

Those who had raised concerns over the presence of the biolabs have been dismissed as conspiracy theorists and accused of regurgitating Russian disinformation.

But comments made by US Deputy Secretary of state Victoria Nuland in March prompted further suspicions when she appeared to confirm the biological programme, saying she feared the labs would “fall into Russian hands.”

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said on Friday that the US must explain its activities and called on it to stop “single-handedly opposing the establishment of a verification mechanism for the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC).

“As I stressed time and again, the US conducts more bio-military activities than any other country in the world.

“Moreover, the US is the only country opposing the establishment of a verification mechanism for the BWC.

“The international community has long had concerns over this. Recently, Russia has further revealed the US’s bio-military activities in Ukraine, and raised clearly that the US has violated the BWC.

“According to the stipulations of the BWC, the US is under an obligation to provide clarifications on Russia’s allegation so as to restore the international community’s confidence in the US’s compliance,” he said.

Washington denies Russian claims that it has experimented on humans after it was alleged that testing of pathogens was carried out on psychiatric patients from Kharkiv.

The United States has been accused of engaging in biological warfare in the past.

Late Cuban leader Fidel Castro claimed that its operatives had introduced swine fever and dengue fever into the country, with a previously unknown strain of the latter created in a laboratory.

The aim was to create “the largest number of victims possible,” he said.

Former Daily Worker international correspondent Alan Winnington and Australian journalist Wilfred Burchett were accused of treason and had their passports cancelled after exposing the US biological war in Korea in the 1950s.

Despite the denials, an International Scientific Commission headed by Cambridge University’s Professor Joseph Needham concluded that China and North Korea had been subjected to bacteriological weapons.

MORNINGSTAR